ARUN KUMAR JHA Vs. PUSHPA CHOUDHARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Sushmita Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 30.10.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Munger, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1/2007 whereby he has affirmed an order dated 5.12.2006 passed by learned Munsif -I, Munger, in Title Suit No. 28/2006. By the order dated 15.12.2006 passed in Title Suit No. 28/2006, learned Munsif -I, Munger had granted injunction in favour of the Respondents 1st party, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court; directing the petitioners/defendants not to disturb the business of brickkiln over the suit property as described in Schedule to the plaint.

(2.) BEFORE I come to the merits of the case and submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, it would be apt to take note of certain dates. After the Title Suit being Title Suit No. 28 of 2006 was filed in the year 2006, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed by an order dated 15.12.2006. Against the said order a Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred by the petitioners vide Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1/2007. The Appeal was, however, dismissed on 30.10.2007 by the Court of learned District Judge, Munger. It seems that the petitioners thereafter, filed a Civil Revision before this Court vide C.R. No. 296 of 2008. In view of the certain developments on the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision, vide an order dated 22.7.2010 passed by this Court in C.R. No. 296/2008, the petitioners were directed to convert the Civil Revision into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India within three weeks, with the stipulation that if it was not done so within three weeks, the Civil Revision shall stand rejected. The petitioners did not take steps and by virtue of the peremptory order, the said C.R. No. 296 of 2008 stood dismissed. Thereafter, restoration application vide M.J.C. No. 1566 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners which was allowed vide order dated 6.7.2011 and the time for compliance of the order dated 22.7.2010 was extended by two weeks from the date of order passed in M.J.C. 1566 of 2011, i.e. 6.7.2011. It appears that even this order dated 6.7.2011 was not complied and thus the said Civil Revision No. 296 of 2008 could not be restored to its original file. Thereafter, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed and was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 17515 of 2012. Evidently, the injunction order which was passed on 15.12.2006 has remained operative for nearly seven years as of now.

(3.) AS has been noted above, there is concurrent finding by two Courts on the point of prima facie case and balance of convenience for the purpose of grant of injunction. The orders have been passed after taking into account in detail the pleadings of the respective parties. The correctness of such order cannot be gone into by this Court in a proceeding under Article 227 like an Appellate Court. This Court can interfere with such orders only if it is found that exercise of jurisdiction or discretion is patently illegal and grossly unjust. Where two views are possible and one has been taken by the subordinate Court, this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not required to look into the correctness or otherwise of such orders.